Prince Henry's victim of back-in-form Feckenham

Prince Henry's victim of back-in-form Feckenham

Prince Henry's victim of back-in-form Feckenham

First published in Sport

PRINCE Henry's fell to defeat as Feckenham returned to winning ways in the Worcestershire Cricket Board Indoor League Evesham Division.

Dumbleton could not field a team and conceded to Bredon, who are now the only title challengers to Ashton-under-Hill.

Prince Henry's (118-2) lost to Feckenham (119-1) with three balls remaining.

A match, where the batsmen were in charge, finally went Feckenham's way in the last over.

Prince Henry's young team was supported by the experience of Tom Pilling and Simon Price, who got the scoreboard moving before being retired.

They were well supported by Dominic Fenney (25 not out) and George Burford (21no), who ran intelligently and quickly between the wickets.

Feckenham started uncertainly when Josh Stacey was bowled by Burford in the second over.

From the fourth over on, the villagers were always sufficiently ahead of Prince Henry's rate to have a cushion for mishaps.

Apart from one Pilling over yielding only a run, they remained fairly safe and needed just seven from the last over to win with five wickets in hand.

Ben Adshead, Andy Kings and Luke Jackson were all retired having made 25.

Alex Richardson (18 no) and Ryan Humphries led them home.

The next matches on Tuesday from 8pm are Redditch v The Boxmen and Ashton-under-Hill v Evesham Casuals.


Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree